Scriptural Support of Worthiness Interviews

[Gray]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

And there's nothing in the Word of Wisdom about meth, cocaine, or heroin.  And yet...

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes. Although the WOW's intent is definitely to encourage people to avoid unhealthy substances. I don't see anything in the scriptures that would push us towards having worthiness interviews. I don't see anything against it either. It's just a longstanding tradition.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think it looked like our modern system, but I think there was an interview process with questions. 

How did they determine baptismal worthiness, for example? Simply a public altar call profession, and that was good enough? Could early Mormon leaders exercise discretion, or were they bound by people's honor system declarations? 

I don't know the technical history of worthiness interviews. But, I don't think the concept of them would have been foreign to early Mormons.

Sounds like we need some historical information. One, two, three not-it!

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes. Although the WOW's intent is definitely to encourage people to avoid unhealthy substances. I don't see anything in the scriptures that would push us towards having worthiness interviews.

I do.

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't see anything against it either. It's just a longstanding tradition.

I think it's more than that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

There's nothing in there about worthiness interviews.

How do you propose that the Church could determine the worthiness of a member without an interview?

[Gray]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do.

I think it's more than that.

Thanks,

-Smac

If it's a revelation, it's one of those pesky ones that no one bothered to write down.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

How do you propose that the Church could determine the worthiness of a member without an interview?

Why would they need to do that? Traditionally that's been God's job.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Why would they need to do that? Traditionally that's been God's job.

Because the Lord told Hid servants to. See Helaman 16:1, D&C 97:15,  3 Nephi 18:28:...just a few quick examples

[BillyandJane]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Because the Lord told Hid servants to. See Helaman 16:1, D&C 97:15,  3 Nephi 18:28:...just a few quick examples

RE: D&C 97:15 -  I always found this verse and 'worthiness' interviews odd in conjunction with Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God".  We are all sinners, no matter what, and so what does 'worthy' even mean?  That you are able to abide by a list of arbitrary rules?  Weren't the 'rule followers' of Jesus' day called 'vipers' and 'snakes' because they were all about the outward rule following and looked down on those who couldn't obey as well as they could?   It just seems like a weird practice, especially when they want to involve the youth in their worthiness measuring.  "Worthy" is such an abstract idea that it SHOULD BE only a deity that judges it, not some equally sinful human, right?

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

If it's a revelation, it's one of those pesky ones that no one bothered to write down.

You don't know that.  Not all revelations are published.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 6, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

How do you propose that the Church could determine the worthiness of a member without an interview?

Each individual should determine their own worthiness.  

[Danzo]

"And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and bloodunworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him."

 

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, Danzo said:

"And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and bloodunworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him."

 

Well hey....I always remember this scripture as I was not allowed to partake of the sacrament for awhile...but golly gee...Bishop has been bringing damnation to his soul for how many years???

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Why would they need to do that? Traditionally that's been God's job.

God apparently has set some standards for worthiness and uses the interview process to a way to enforce them.  Some may lie there way through the process but that is just more sin on their head.  I just don't see how your method of doing NOTHING accomplishes anything.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Well hey....I always remember this scripture as I was not allowed to partake of the sacrament for awhile...but golly gee...Bishop has been bringing damnation to his soul for how many years???

Probably more than one person in that catagory

[carbon dioxide]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Each individual should determine their own worthiness.  

Ok but there has to be a gatekeeper to judge things.  We all rationalize our behavior.  There should be an objective party to look at issues to decide whether the behavior is in or out of bounds.  In football there are refs to make calls.  Sometimes they make mistakes but it would be insane to just have the players determine whether they committed a penalty and throw a flag on themselves.  One thing is absolutely clear.  If there were no interviews, more people would say enter the temple without being worthy than as do now.  I don't see how your method would help a thing.  With no temple recommend, jus anyone off the street could walk into a temple. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

How do you propose that the Church could determine the worthiness of a member without an interview?

Each individual should determine their own worthiness.  

Then why have "judges in Israel?" 

From the EOM:

Quote

The bishop's office is a complex priesthood calling. The bishop is president of the ward's Aaronic Priesthood holders and is responsible for all their activities. He is also an ordained high priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood and is the presiding high priest in the ward, responsible for all ward activities and functions (D&C 107:15-17). As the common judge and the presiding high priest, he determines the worthiness of all members of his ward and directs the performance of sacred ordinances (D&C 107:68-76).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

This contains some of the scriptures already cited and dismissed.  I haven't had a chance to go over it closely (I'm at work) but it also contains helpful context and may contain other scriptures germane to the question (though I don't know for sure).  But for what it's worth:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-i-judges-in-israel-watching-over-the-church?lang=eng

[Tacenda]

 

Some say it started with the Mormon Reformation. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_is_the_history_of_the_"Mormon_Reformation"%3F 

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, BillyandJane said:

RE: D&C 97:15 -  I always found this verse and 'worthiness' interviews odd in conjunction with Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God".  We are all sinners, no matter what, and so what does 'worthy' even mean?  That you are able to abide by a list of arbitrary rules?  Weren't the 'rule followers' of Jesus' day called 'vipers' and 'snakes' because they were all about the outward rule following and looked down on those who couldn't obey as well as they could?   It just seems like a weird practice, especially when they want to involve the youth in their worthiness measuring.  "Worthy" is such an abstract idea that it SHOULD BE only a deity that judges it, not some equally sinful human, right?

Nope.  There's no such thing as "equally sinful."  Saying that everyone sins isn't the same thing as saying that everyone commits the same sins.  And someone who says, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner," is in a far different boat than someone who, failing to acknowledge his sins (no matter how seemingly insignificant compared to those of those he condemns), says, "Lord, I thank the that I am not as other men."

And as one of my Judges in Israel once told me, "If I'm going to err, I want to err on the side of mercy."

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Ok but there has to be a gatekeeper to judge things.  We all rationalize our behavior.  There should be an objective party to look at issues to decide whether the behavior is in or out of bounds.  In football there are refs to make calls.  Sometimes they make mistakes but it would be insane to just have the players determine whether they committed a penalty and throw a flag on themselves.  One thing is absolutely clear.  If there were no interviews, more people would say enter the temple without being worthy than as do now.  I don't see how your method would help a thing.  With no temple recommend, jus anyone off the street could walk into a temple. 

Honest question, why does there need to be a gatekeeper to judge things for temple attendance?  What is the reasoning behind that.  I'm questioning the assumptions that you're starting with.  

[hope_for_things]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then why have "judges in Israel?" 

From the EOM:

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps we've been misapplying the judges in Israel concept, and we should revisit the scope and purpose of this idea.  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps we've been misapplying the judges in Israel concept, and we should revisit the scope and purpose of this idea.  

Okay.  You said "Each individual should determine their own worthiness."

To which I responded: "Then why have 'judges in Israel?'"

What are your thoughts?  What are bishops supposed to "judge?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Dando]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To which I responded: "Then why have 'judges in Israel?'"

 

For disciplinary councils.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Dando said:

For disciplinary councils.

That's all?  From D&C 107:

Quote

72 And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church.
73 This is the duty of a bishop who is not a literal descendant of Aaron, but has been ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.
74 Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion, or in a stake of Zion, or in any branch of the church where he shall be set apart unto this ministry, until the borders of Zion are enlarged and it becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion or elsewhere.
75 And inasmuch as there are other bishops appointed they shall act in the same office.
76 But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this priesthood, to the keys of this ministry, to act in the office of bishop independently, without counselors, except in a case where a President of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, is tried, to sit as a judge in Israel.
77 And the decision of either of these councils, agreeable to the commandment which says:
78 Again, verily, I say unto you, the most important business of the church, and the most difficult cases of the church, inasmuch as there is not satisfaction upon the decision of the bishop or judges, it shall be handed over and carried up unto the council of the church, before the Presidency of the High Priesthood.

What is meant, in your view, by "the business of the church?"  

What is meant, in your view, by "a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion?"

Absent interviews with a bishop, how is the Church supposed to determine the worthiness of a member for things like participating in sacred ordinances?

Also, what is your view of the concept of, to borrow a legal phrase, "discretionary authority" as to a bishop functioning in that office?

For example, our ward's bishop is the "agent bishop" for our building, meaning that he is reponsible for monitoring the physical condition and security of the building.  Here are some examples of what he has done as agent bishop:

• The bishop regularly confers with the other bishops in the building regarding use  or misuse of the building.  He regularly monitors the kitchen to make sure it is clean, that nobody is storing food there, etc.
• A while back a member of the ward asked our bishop if she could schedule a concert at the church building in order to raise funds for cyclone relief for people in the Philippines.  The bishop reviewed the request with the stake president and the Church, both of which stated that the Church does not allow fundraisers on its properties (apparently there are legal reasons for doing so).  So the bishop contacted the ward member and explained the situation to her.  
• The bishop also confers with the stake presidency and the FM group as needed, such as a recent incident in which the curtain on the stage in the Cultural Hall was torn and needing repair or replacement.
• A few months ago the bishop approached a homeless fellow who had taken up residence behind a condenser unit in an obscured area outside of the church building.  The man had apparently been getting into the building after hours, cooking food outside, using the facilities (inside the building and out), using the Church's wifi (he had a tablet and a Netflix subscription to pass the time).  The man had also apparently approached some of the young women who attend a YSA ward that meets in our building (not sure what he said, but he apparently disturbed them enough to report the incident to their bishop, who in turn reported it to ours).  The bishop went home, cooked the man a sizable breakfast, then took the food and delivered it to the man.  The bishop advised the man that he could no longer camp on the church property, but that he (the bishop) could help him get into a shelter.  The man thanked the bishop for the food and said he would move on.  The bishop went back an hour or so later to check on him, and he was indeed gone.  

So here we have the bishop restricting usage of the Church building (no storage of food overnight, no use of the building for fundraisers, etc.).  The bishop also coordinated with the stake president and the FM group regarding a torn curtain.  The bishop also spoke with a homeless man and asked him to no longer camp on the Church's property.

None of these circumstances is addressed in the Doctrine & Covenants.  Do you think, on that basis, that our bishop has been exceeding his authority by doing these things?  Or is it possible that these things fall within the discretionary authority of a bishop, even though not specifically itemized in the D&C?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 6, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

2 hours ago, BillyandJane said:

RE: D&C 97:15 -  I always found this verse and 'worthiness' interviews odd in conjunction with Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God".  We are all sinners, no matter what, and so what does 'worthy' even mean?  That you are able to abide by a list of arbitrary rules?  Weren't the 'rule followers' of Jesus' day called 'vipers' and 'snakes' because they were all about the outward rule following and looked down on those who couldn't obey as well as they could?   It just seems like a weird practice, especially when they want to involve the youth in their worthiness measuring.  "Worthy" is such an abstract idea that it SHOULD BE only a deity that judges it, not some equally sinful human, right?

What "worthy" and "worthiness" mean depends on context. Arbitrary rules, the vipers and snakes, weird practices, abstract ideas and any determination falling under the sole purview of God do not describe LDS worthiness interviews. You are taking the conversation into the realm of what constitutes legitimate priesthood keys, authority and stewardship, not scriptural support for the LDS practice of worthiness interviews, which is off-topic for this thread.

Edited April 6, 2018 by CV75